from the exceptions-that-create-a-rule dept

The ongoing fight at the W3C over Encrypted Media Extensions -- the HTML5 DRM scheme that several companies want ensconced in web standards -- took two worrying turns recently. Firstly, Google slipped an important change into the latest Chrome update that removed the ability to disable its implementation of EME, further neutering the weak argument of supporters that the DRM is optional. But the other development is even more interesting -- and concerning:

Dozens of W3C members -- and hundreds of security professionals -- have asked the W3C to amend its policies so that its members can't use EME to silence security researchers and whistleblowers who want to warn web users that they are in danger from security vulnerabilities in browsers.

So far, the W3C has stonewalled on this. This weekend, the W3C executive announced that it would not make such an agreement part of the EME work, and endorsed the idea that the W3C should participate in creating new legal rights for companies to decide which true facts about browser defects can be disclosed and under what circumstances.

One of the major objections to EME has been the fact that, due to the anti-circumvention copyright laws of several countries, it would quickly become a tool for companies to censor or punish security researchers who find vulnerabilities in their software. The director of the standards body called for a new consensus solution to this problem but, unsurprisingly, "the team was unable to find such a resolution." So the new approach will be a forced compromise of sorts in which, instead of attempting to carve out clear and broad protections for security research, they will work to establish narrower protections only for those who follow a set of best practices for reporting vulnerabilities. In the words of one supporter of the plan, it "won't make the world perfect, but we believe it is an achievable and worthwhile goal."

But this is not a real compromise. Rather, it's a tacit endorsement of the use of DRM for censoring security researchers. Because the argument is not about to what degree such use is acceptable, but whether such use is appropriate at all. It's not, but this legitimizes the idea that it is.

Remember: it's only illegal to circumvent DRM due to copyright law, which is not supposed to have anything to do with the act of exploring and researching software and publishing findings about how it functions. On paper, that's a side effect (though obviously a happy and intentional side effect for many DRM proponents). The argument at the W3C did not start because of an official plan to give software vendors a way to censor security research, but because that would be the ultimate effect of EME in many places thanks to copyright law. Codifying a set of practices for permissible security disclosures might be "better" than having no exception at all in that narrow practical sense, but it's also worse for effectively declaring that to be an acceptable application of DRM technology in the first place. It could even make things worse overall, arming companies with a classic "they should have used the proper channels" argument.

In other words, this is a pure example of the often-misunderstood idea of an exception that proves a rule -- in this case, the rule that DRM is a way to control security researchers.

Of course, security research isn't the only thing at stake. Cory Doctorow was active on the mailing list in response to the announcement, pointing out the significant concerns raised by people who need special accessibility tools for various impairments, and the lack of substantial response:

The document with accessibility use-cases is quite specific, while all
the dismissals of it have been very vague, and made appeals to authority
("technical experts who are passionate advocates for accessibility who
have carefully assessed the technology over years have declared that
there isn't a problem") rather than addressing those issues.

How, for example, would the 1 in 4000 people with photosensitive
epilepsy be able to do lookaheads in videos to ensure that upcoming
sequences passed the Harding Test without being able to decrypt the
stream and post-process it through their own safety software? How would
someone who was colorblind use Dankam to make realtime adjustments to
the gamut of videos to accommodate them to the idiosyncrasies of their
vision and neurology?

I would welcome substantive discussion on these issues -- rather than
perfunctory dismissals. The fact that W3C members who specialize in
providing adaptive technology to people with visual impairments on three
continents have asked the Director to ensure that EME doesn't interfere
with their work warrants a substantive reply.

For the moment, it doesn't look like any clear resolution to this debate is on the horizon inside the W3C. But these latest moves raise the concern that the pro-DRM faction will quietly move forward with making EME the norm (Doctorow also questioned the schedule for this stuff, and whether these "best practices" for security research will lag behind the publication of the standard). Of course, the best solution would be to reform copyright and get rid of the anti-circumvention laws that make this an issue in the first place.

from the seize,-search,-judge... dept

A very interesting (read: wtf) case from Texas [PDF] -- one that resulted in criminal charges of official oppression against a Dept. of Family and Protective Services employee -- posits that there may be yet another warrant exemption: the "I don't approve of your lifestyle and/or choices" exception.

This "exception" has often been used by actual parents when searching rooms/electronic devices of their children, but private searches usually don't violate the Fourth Amendment. Searches using the same moral prerogative, when performed by agents of the state, do.

The case involves a warrantless search of a 15-year-old's cellphone by Natalie Reynolds, a Department supervisor. The Sheriff's Department located the runaway teen (referred to only as "A.K." throughout the decision) and turned her over to Reynolds. Reynolds confiscated A.K.'s personal belongings, including her cellphone, which she then decided to search for a number of stated reasons -- none of which was allowable under state case law, much less the Supreme Court's Riley decision.

The Riley decision is only referenced in a footnote, as the illegal searches were performed in 2012, roughly two years before the Supreme Court arrived at its conclusion. But that didn't prevent the court from finding state precedent that upheld Reynold's conviction.

Reynolds' coworkers provided plenty of testimony against her, rebutting her assertion that her search and seizure of the teen's cellphone was somehow related to finding A.K. somewhere to live.

Kenny Stillwagoner, formerly with the Department, testified that he believed Reynolds, Ross, or both of them, took possession of A.K.’s cell phone without her consent. He also testified that Reynolds remained in possession of the cell phone because she believed it contained contact information for drug dealers. In addition, Edie Diane Fletcher, also formerly with the Department, testified that, when she contacted Reynolds about the situation regarding A.K.’s cell phone, Reynolds explained to her that she could not return the phone to A.K. because she believed A.K.’s cell phone contained contact information relating to drug dealers and that “they” needed to “finish their investigation.”

A.K. testified that she became very upset when Ross and Reynolds refused to return her cell phone and that both Ross and Reynolds looked through her cell phone. Further, A.K. testified that Ross and Reynolds retrieved information from her cell phone relating to Steve Lamb and Michael Watts, and there was no evidence presented that either of these men was considered as a potential placement option for A.K. In fact, A.K. had little, if any, information as to why she was questioned about her relationship to either man.

Reynolds tried to argue that her warrantless search of the cellphone was also somehow related to "exigent circumstances" -- that there was an "emergency regarding A.K.'s physical and emotional wellbeing." The state itself disagreed with Reynold's assertion.

The State maintains that Reynolds, as a representative of the Department, cannot claim that she acted in loco parentis or as A.K.’s de facto parent because she was “not acting as a ‘parent’ when she was searching [A.K.’s] phone. Instead, she was clearly acting as an investigator attempting to build a case for either herself or law enforcement.” The State points to Reynolds’ affidavit, arguing that it “reads like a veteran police detective interrogating a criminal suspect.”

Rather than show her purported concern for A.K.'s wellbeing, Reynolds spent most of her time with A.K. questioning her about drug use, drug paraphernalia, and drug sales. Also, contrary to her stated concerns about A.K. having no place to go, the state points out that a placement facility had already been found at the point Reynolds decided to take A.K.'s phone and search it for "drug evidence."

The court notes that there are a wealth of warrant exceptions available to state agents when performing searches. Reynold's opinion of A.K.'s lifestyle, however, isn't one that's been recognized by any court -- or anyone possessing a modicum of common sense, actually.

Based on precedent and this record, we conclude that A.K. had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her cell phone. Reynolds seems to claim, however, that, because A.K. had been known to use drugs and was allegedly having inappropriate relationships with adult men, that somehow changed A.K.’s expectation of privacy in her phone.

That's not how the Fourth Amendment works. And Reynolds' narrative about the phone's search somehow being related to caring for A.K.'s wellbeing doesn't hold up when compared to the facts.

Based on A.K.’s alleged behavior and lack of any known placement options at the time, Reynolds contends that she had an urgent responsibility to find A.K. a place to reside until the Department took custody of her and that she believed A.K.’s phone contained useful information that could assist her in that endeavor.

[...]

Had Reynolds wanted the cell phone for the purpose she claims, she would have had no reason to continue in possession of the phone once a placement facility for A.K. had been located. A.K.’s cell phone was not seized pursuant to an arrest, and there is no evidence of any warrant, court order, or consent to seize or search A.K.’s cell phone. Reynolds’ claim of exigent circumstances is not compelled by the evidence. For these reasons, we find that Reynolds’ actions were not authorized.

The conviction for official oppression is upheld. Oddly, as is pointed out at FourthAmendment.com, this sort of behavior by law enforcement officers usually only results in suppression of evidence, rather than official oppression charges. Lots of wrongful arrests and warrantless searches would seem to fit the language of the statute once the officer's immunity has been stripped.

A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful…

And yet, this charge is almost never brought, much less successfully prosecuted -- yet another way law enforcement operates at a lower level of culpability than the rest of the government. And far, far lower than what is expected of the citizens they serve.

from the what's-up-with-that? dept

We've already written a few stories about the newly leaked IP chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and how the US is pushing back against any attempt to punish abusers or to support the public domain. But in going through the documents, another key fact strikes me. Throughout the document it's designed to absolutely require strict copyright laws and enforcement. But when it gets to the public's rights, the so-called "limitations and exceptions," the agreement tosses up a big fat "meh, that one's voluntary."

We've already pointed out how ridiculous it is to refer to things like fair use as a "limitation and exception" to copyright, when it should be the public's rights -- and copyright restrictions are, by their very nature, a limitation and exception on those natural rights. But it's even worse in the TPP. As you may recall, the USTR announced, with great fanfare back in 2012, that "for the first time" it was moving to include such "limitations and exceptions" in the TPP. The USTR thought that this would appease people who had been complaining about the entirely one-sided pro-copyright extremist position that it had been pushing for decades. Of course, when the details came out it showed that the USTR was really proposing a limit on fair use by proposing a rule that would act as a ceiling for the kind of fair use-like protections for the public that would be allowed.

Now, with the latest leak, there's something else that's noteworthy. Here's the text of the "limitations and exceptions" clause in the copyright section:

Article.GG.Y {Limitations and Exceptions}

Each Party shall endeavour to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,
inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16.1, including
those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited
to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and
facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print
disabled.

Notice the text I bolded: "shall endeavour." In other words, "well, you can try for it, but you don't need to do it." Now, look at basically all of the other text and it's straight up "shall." No "shall endeavour" for everything else. Everything else is required. Only the stuff about the public's rights lets countries not do it so long as they claim they tried. Here, just for comparison's sake, are just a few of the other "shall's":

Article QQ.G.1: {Copyright and Related Rights/Right of Reproduction}

Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the
right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms
in any manner or form, including in electronic form.

And...

each Party shall provide to authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the
communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to
the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place
and at a time individually chosen by them.

And...

Each Party shall provide to authors, performers, and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or
prohibit the making available of the original and copies of their works, performances, and
phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership.

And...

Each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work
embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the
authorization of the performer or producer is also required.

Etc. etc. By my count, the copyright section includes thirteen "shall provide" and just the one measly "shall endeavour." And if you add in the enforcement section you get another thirty eight "shall provide" and just a single "shall endeavour" buried in a footnote unrelated to the key points in the document.

So, for those of you playing along at home, the message being sent by the TPP is pretty damn clear: when it comes to ratcheting up copyright and setting the ground rules for enforcement everything is required and every country must take part. Yet, when it comes to protecting the rights of the public and making sure copyright is more balanced to take into account the public... well, then it's optional.

I guess that's what happens when the public is not allowed a seat at the table, but the industry representatives get full time access to the document and the negotiators.

from the that-belongs-in-a-museum dept

For those of us that think certain intellectual property laws have become overbearing and overly burdensome, one of the fun little exercises is to try and figure out where the best battlegrounds are for the fight against them. For instance, if you think cable television has become expensive, unfriendly, and overtly insane, you want to pay special attention to how professional sports are broadcasted now and in the future. If you want to find ground to battle expanded trademark protections and the crazy ways some companies interpret their rights, perhaps the alcohol and beer industry is a good place to draw a line in the proverbial sand. And for copyright? Well, there has always been a ton of focus on music and movies, but we may be seeing the world of video games emerge as the best ground from which to push back against the restrictions of antiquated copyright in the digital age.

Recently, we covered the spiderweb of nonsense one company had to go through just to try to publish a decade-old game, an attempt that was ultimately given up because the web proved to be too convoluted to navigate. Now, a Consumerist post explains how the DMCA and game publishers have (perhaps) unwittingly conspired to keep video games from claiming their rightful place within our cultural lexicon. The focus in the post is on section 1201 of the DMCA.

Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits consumers from circumventing copyright protection measures put in place on games or any other digital media. So even if you can figure out a fix that will make a game work offline — much like the Sim City player who discovered a work-around against the disastrous always-online requirement — it’s against the law to do so, even if you’re not otherwise violating the copyright and even if this is the only way to make an abandoned game viable again. Yes, somehow keeping it illegal to fix broken, abandoned games aids in this innovation; perhaps by forcing people to keep buying newer releases.

The piece then draws up two conflicting sides on section 1201 with regards to video games: the Entertainment Software Association on one side and the EFF on the other. The EFF has filed a request to have exemptions put in to section 1201 for gaming enthusiasts and, more importantly, for museums who would need to alter the game in order to make it in any way useful for exhibit. Take, for instance, any of the games that Electronic Arts, member of the ESA, decides to torpedo in whole or in part by shutting down game servers that support or check-in with the software. Or, perhaps more apropos, take any of the myriad of recent games that have been released as "always online," with copyright protections essentially amounting to a check in with servers not in the consumer's control. What happens when those servers are no longer worth supporting and are shut down? Well, some or all of the game becomes un-playable.

Now, let's leave aside the question of whether or not a consumer truly owns the game they buy under these scenarios. Let's also leave aside whether this kind of DRM or copyright protection is worthwhile at all. Instead, let's focus on how curators of games can handle this kind of thing in a world where DMCA section 1201 forbids the kind of tampering that would get around these restrictions. Should the ESA get its way and keep 1201 exemption-free, so-called abandoned games or abandonware becomes abandoned culture. And not, by the way, abandoned by the consumer or the public, which might include museums or academics with a strong interest in curating older games. No, the abandonment is committed by the game company itself, leaving a giant cultural hole that cannot be filled in because of a copyright law section those same companies are defending.

I've long argued that video games should be considered every bit the equivalent of movies and music. Try to find an equivalent to this problem with either music or movies, however, and you'll be at it quite a long time before you find anything meaningful. Netflix doesn't count, because you aren't buying a movie in Netflix. Same with music streaming services. The closest thing to it is probably how some e-readers can disappear books the consumer has purchased. The difference there is that the entire cultural deposit with a literary work likely isn't lost when that sort of thing happens, as it can be found and curated in other forms. That's not the case with old and classic games.

You want to find a place to take a stance against expanded copyright in favor of greater culture? That place is with games. The ESA knows this, which is why it is staunchly defending section 1201.

The gaming industry argues that allowing these modifications would “undermine the fundamental copyright principles on which our copyright laws are based,” and send the message that “hacking… is lawful.”

In fact, as the EFF points out, “hacking” in and of itself is completely legal.

“Most of the programmers that create games for Sony, Microsoft, EA, Nintendo, and other ESA members undoubtedly learned their craft by tinkering with existing software,” writes the EFF. “If ‘hacking,’ broadly defined, were actually illegal, there likely would have been no video game industry.”

And no cultural boon from games as a result. Section 1201, within the framework of gaming, can be said to be firmly anti-culture. No two ways about it.

from the it's-free-speech dept

This week is Fair Use Week, according to the Association of Research Libraries, and that's as good a time as any to remind everyone that it's wrong to refer to fair as merely a "limitation or exception" to copyright law -- or merely a defense to infringement. It is a right that is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has regularly referred to "fair use" as a "safeguard" of the First Amendment, allowing copyright law to be compatible with the First Amendment. As such, it seems bizarre that fair use is not seen as the default, rather than the other way around. If we are to protect the First Amendment, and not allow for speech to be stifled, at the very least, we need a greater recognition of the importance of fair use in guaranteeing that the First Amendment's principles of free speech are allowed to thrive.

Freedom of expression is a right that may not be abridged by the government -- except in a few narrowly defined cases. Copyright is one of those cases -- and we can argue about whether or not that's appropriate, but at the very least, it's important to shift our view from thinking "copyright" is the norm and that fair use is a small "exception," to one where we recognize that free expression is the norm, with fair use making sure that freedom of expression is enabled, even when copyright is present.

Unfortunately, too many powers that be in legacy industries have sought to flip this equation. They deny that fair use is a right -- insisting it is merely a "defense" to infringement. While it is true that under current law, in order to be able to demonstrate your fair use rights, you need to raise it as an affirmative defense to an accusation of copyright infringement, that does not diminish the fact that fair use is simply a procedure for guaranteeing your First Amendment rights. It is not a small issue that's only important in academic debate, but rather a central issue that determines just how strongly we, as a society, believe in the First Amendment.

Finally, how could we conclude a post on fair use without including some fair use in it? How about this video, misleadingly called The Infringement Melody (Section 107 of the Copyright Act clearly states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright"), which appears to be a student project to come out of a popular Yale class on Law, Technology and Culture, in which fair use is a big part of the curriculum:

F-A-I-R U-S-E... find out what it means to me!

Also, be on the lookout for tomorrow's podcast... all about fair use as well.

from the protections-that-only-protect-bad-cops dept

Florida's legislators are pushing through bills mandating body camera use by the state's law enforcement officers. So far, so good, except for the fact that law enforcement officers aren't really looking for greater transparency or accountability, at least not according to Florida Police Benevolent Association chief Gary Bradford.

“Our concern is if the camera is on, and it’s required to be on through the entire shift, then it will capture video and audio when you have roll calls or when you’re walking down the hallway or just as you’re go through your day. You’re on a lunch break, you’re in the privacy of your own car with your partner, you’re having a conversation about having a fight with your wife in the morning, or something along those lines, and we just think those things are private, and they shouldn’t be part of the discussion,” said Bradford.

PCS/SB 248 creates a public records exemption for an audio or video recording made by a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer performing his or her official duties and responsibilities, if the recording:

Is taken within the interior of a private residence; Is taken on the property of a facility that offers health care, mental health care, or social services; Is taken at the scene of a medical emergency; Is taken at a place where a person recorded or depicted in the recording has a reasonable expectation of privacy; Shows a child younger than 18 years of age inside a school or on school property; or Shows a child younger than 14 years of age at any location.

Taken without context, the list of exceptions seems reasonable. But match it up with recent events, and you can see where this set of exceptions could easily nullify this tool of accountability.

Medical emergency exception? Sure, HIPAA and other related laws make medical events and history very private information, subject to several sharing restrictions. But what if a cop is called to assist someone who's suffering a medical emergency or is suicidal or suffers from mental illness? Far too often, a call for help is answered with violence. Under this exception, the underlying medical emergency prompting the police response would allow law enforcement agencies to withhold captured body cam footage.

The exceptions devoted to minors would allow law enforcement agencies to withhold the sort of damning footage that contradicted the Cleveland police narrative in the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. Without this footage, the public would have been left to rely on the CPD's claims that Rice refused to comply with multiple orders to put his hands up and "made a move towards his waistband," ultimately resulting in his being shot to death by responding officers. A park surveillance camera recording showed what actually happened: two police officers drove across the park, stopping within feet of Tamir Rice and and shot him within two seconds of arrival.

"If this was really about privacy, it would apply to what officers can practically release on their own as well," Richardson says. "So this is really just about shielding police misconduct. If police want to control the narrative, they can release what they want."

While not nearly as restrictive as the LAPD's policy of only releasing body cam footage to parties involved in criminal or civil court proceedings, it's still a recipe for disaster. Florida has laws in place that already restrict the release of police-captured recordings and this pile of exceptions -- while facially well-intentioned -- allows agencies to further dodge accountability for their officers' misdeeds.

from the she-said-what??? dept

Last year, we wrote about a European Commission consultation on copyright, which revealed the vast chasm between the views of the public and those of the copyright industry. In particular, where the former wanted many aspects of copyright to change, the latter thought things were pretty good, and should be left as they were.

Often such consultations are just filed away, as is currently happening with the one on corporate sovereignty. But in the case of copyright, the person appointed to write a report on what should happen next is the lone Pirate Party Member of the European Parliament, Julia Reda, and she is clearly determined to use the results of the consultation to help reform EU copyright. The draft version of her report for the European Parliament evaluating the current 2001 copyright directive turns out to be remarkably faithful to many of the Pirate Party's ideas on copyright. Here's Reda's (intentionally Tweetable) encapsulation:

Although the directive was meant to adapt copyright to the digital age, in reality it is blocking the exchange of knowledge and culture across borders today.

Drawing on the responses to a public consultation on the topic by the Commission in 2014 as well as scientific studies, the report calls for common European rules: "The goals set out in the [copyright] directive can be best achieved with the introduction of a Single European Copyright Title", it states, emphasising the need to “allow equal access […] across borders” to achieve the goal of a digital single market.

The report calls for the harmonization of copyright terms and exceptions across Europe, new exceptions for emerging use cases like audio-visual quotation, e-lending and text and data mining, as well as the adoption of an open norm to “allow for the adaptation to unanticipated new forms of cultural expression”. It recommends “exempting works produced by the public sector […] from copyright protection” and demands that “exercise of exceptions or limitations […] should not be hindered by technological measures”.

That short summary rather downplays the boldness of the proposals, which are well-worth reading in full. In another sign of Reda's Pirate origins and general Net-savviness -- she also references Techdirt's "The Sky is Rising 2" report -- she has posted the full text of her draft on an online discussion platform that lets anyone comment and rate individual sections. Remarkably, the "harmonization of copyright terms" mentioned above is downwards:

Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;

That is, life plus 50 years, rather than the widespread life plus 70 years. Reda also wants to protect and expand the public domain:

Recommends that the EU legislator should further lower the barriers for re-use of public sector information by exempting works produced by the public sector -- within the political, legal and administrative process -- from copyright protection;

Her proposals for harmonizing exceptions are equally dramatic:

Calls on the Commission to make mandatory all exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal security;

Not only does Reda want to bring in all the allowed exceptions and limitations across the whole EU, she also proposes a mechanism for creating new ones:

Calls for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;

She calls for the clarification of a number of important questions that have arisen recently. These include confirming that hyperlinking is not an infringement of copyright; allowing the use of photographs and videos of works that are displayed in public places; confirming that the caricature, parody and pastiche exceptions apply regardless of the parodic purpose; permitting text and data mining; exceptions for research and educational purposes, as well as allowing libraries to lend out ebooks. She also tackles DRM:

Stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be hindered by technological measures;

And adds this rather unusual rider:

Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological protections are employed and to ease interoperability; in particular, when the circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such authorised circumvention must be available;

As those excerpts make clear, practically everything here is likely to make the copyright maximalists howl -- particularly the unprecedented suggestion that copyright terms should be reduced for once, instead of constantly extending them, as in the past. Of course, not everything will survive the lobbying barrage that will hit the various EU committees as they review the text, nor will the European Commission adopt every proposal when it puts together its proposal for the new directive on copyright to update the current one.

But the report is nonetheless an amazing achievement for someone who has been a Member of the European Parliament for less than a year: Reda and her team should be proud of their work. It is also hugely important, because it raises in such a clear and thoughtful way most of the key problems with today's copyright. In doing so, it provides an excellent basis on which to have a wide-ranging discussion, both in the European Parliament and beyond, about ways to make the 300-year-old copyright system fit for the digital age.

from the transparency-needed dept

For years, we've discussed the ridiculous and unnecessary secrecy concerning trade agreements negotiated by the USTR. The text of the negotiating documents and even the US's general position is kept secret until the very end, at which point concerns from the public and innovators no longer matter. Instead, the USTR relies on legacy industry "advisors" who are mostly interested in protecting what they have from disruption, change and innovation. For all the talk of how these agreements are "free trade" agreements, they tend to be anything but. They are focused on protecting a few industries against competition, disruption and innovation. The former US Trade Rep Ron Kirk was unusually honest a few years ago in admitting that these agreements would never get adopted if the public actually knew what was in them. A year ago, Wikileaks helped leak the "Intellectual Property" chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and now it's done so again with a more recent version of the chapter. Public Citizen has put together a thorough analysis, highlighting a key change: the US pushing to delay access to affordable treatments for cancer and other diseases, in direct contrast to the pledges of the Obama administration.

Large brand-name drug firms want to use the TPP to impose rules throughout Asia that will raise prices on medicine purchases for consumers and governments, and be in effect for the next several decades. With billions at stake, Big Pharma wants the TPP to be a road map for rules that will govern Pacific Rim economies for the next several decades.

A U.S. proposal in the text – to provide long automatic monopolies for biotech drugs or biologics, which includes most new treatments for cancer – contradicts the policies included in recent White House budgets and if adopted would undermine key cost savings touted by the administration. The past budgets have included a specific pledge to shorten the same monopoly periods so as to reduce cost burdens on Medicare and Medicaid.

If the TPP is ratified with this U.S.-proposed provision included, Congress would be unable to reduce monopoly periods without risking significant penalties and investor-state arbitration.

Thankfully, other countries appear to be pushing back on this proposal, but the US is always the 800-pound gorilla in these negotiations. Still, as Wikileaks summarizes, the US is pushing strongly for "drug-company friendly" language that undermines existing agreements under TRIPS. In particular, TRIPS has long allowed countries to authorize the production of cheaper generic drugs to deal with significant health problems. Big Pharma -- showing how it really feels about public health -- has been angry about this for years, and appears to be using TPP as a vehicle to try to undermine it. Of course, they know better than to kill off this provision entirely, but rather, are looking to undermine it. Wikileaks explains:

Also new in the May 2014 text is a "drug company-friendly" version of the TRIPS agreement for compulsory licensing of vital drugs patents. This is a diminished version of the TRIPS agreement that was present in the 2013 text. In theory, by issuing a compulsory licence, a government can authorise cost-cutting generic competition with patented drugs, in exchange for royalty payments to the patent holder. It is a key tool to promote affordable access to medicines. The new exceptions are set out here and here, having deleted the option for "Other Use Without Authorisation of the Right Holder" in the August 2013 text. The current global norms for justifying exceptions to patents are set out in the TRIPS agreement under either Article 30 or 31. Article 30 is a 3-step test that is restrictive in what it grants exceptions for, and is open to interpretation with regards to procedures for doing these tests. Article 31 (referred to in the August 2013 text and now gone) is the one generally used on all compulsory licensing for HIV and cancer drugs. Whilst it is more restrictive, it is limited to cases where patent holders are paid, so as long as a drug qualifies (as most HIV and cancer drugs do) it is possible to get an exception to the patent held by big pharmaceutical companies, breaking big pharma's monopoly on life-saving drugs.

However, the new version of the text of the TPP IP Chapter has deleted the option to use this assessment procedure, requiring many judgement calls on aspects such as how this might "prejudice" the patent holder. This will mean that the procedure is more restrictive and open to interpretation, and therefore lobbying and manipulation. In short, the TPP will greatly reduce the ability for creating more affordable drugs to save more lives, and increase the pharmaceutical industry's ability to retain monopolies.

Elsewhere in the document, we see that the US and Japan (who appear to be aligned a lot against everyone else) are pushing for the following:

For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result
in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth
distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step,
and is capable of industrial application.

Consider this to be the "Eli Lilly clause." As you may recall, Eli Lilly is currently demanding $500 million from Canada under a corporate sovereignty ("investor state dispute settlement" or ISDS) tribunal, because Canada rejected some of its patents for not being any more effective than existing offerings. For most of us, it seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to reject a patent: your patented drug doesn't do anything to make it more useful than existing products. Canadian law agrees. But big pharma, like Eli Lilly flips out, because they want to produce new drugs that they can patent as old patents run out, hoping to trick people into wanting the new, much more expensive "new new thing" rather than the old, generic, cheaper offering that is just as (if not more) effective.

A bunch of countries are pushing for the right to cancel a patent if it "is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive," but of course, the US and Japan are completely against such a thing. Instead, the US and Japan say it should only be cancelled on grounds that would have been justified for refusing to grant the patent in the first place. In other words, most of the countries recognize that patents can be abused in anti-competitive ways and want to protect against that. The US and Japan, on the other hand, appear to be happy with enabling anti-competitive abuses with patents. That says something.

In the copyright section, it appears that US goes beyond existing US law in asking that "making available" be considered one of the exclusive rights protected under copyright law. Some US courts consider "making available" to be considered part of the "distribution" right, but others have disagreed (saying that the distribution right only covers works that have actually been, you know, distributed). While the legacy entertainment industry likes to pretend this is settled law and merely making available equals distribution, that's not entirely clear. No matter, in the agreement, the US (and Japan) push to require everyone to include "making available" as an exclusive right for copyright holders.

There was great fanfare a few years ago when the USTR announced that, for the first time ever, it would include some language about fair use to appease those who were concerned about how these agreements only ratcheted up the enforcement side of copyright, and not the public's rights. Except, when the details finally leaked, we realized the proposed language was actually about limiting fair use by putting a much stricter definition on it. That language is still in the agreement. There still appears to be debate about copyright term length, with at least some pushing to extend the copyright term, because, hey, copyright terms always expand. This comes despite even the head of the Copyright Office agreeing that copyright terms should be reduced.

The US is also looking to definitively kill off any chance of an Aereo-like solution (even if Congress were to pass a law in response to the Supreme Court), by saying that such a service shall not be allowed without authorization of the copyright holder. The agreement would also extend broken anti-circumvention rules that block non-infringing and perfectly reasonable uses. The US is (of course) pushing for more criminal copyright efforts (Vietnam and Malaysia are pushing back). The US, against pretty much everyone else, is also pushing for statutory damages to be a necessary option for civil copyright cases, despite the massive problems we've seen with statutory damages in the US and how it enables shady practices like copyright trolling.

There's a lot of debate about whether or not recording a movie in a theater should be a criminal act. The US, of course, is pushing for what appears to be an extreme definition where any recording should absolutely be seen as criminal. Other countries would like it to be more flexible, leaving it up to the countries to decide if they want to make it criminal. Singapore says the taping should be willful, and Mexico says it should only apply to a significant part of the film. The US doesn't care. If you accidentally record a bit of a movie? Go to jail.

There's a lot more in there, but, once again you can clearly see why the US remains so against any transparency at all in these negotiations. Having to actually answer for why they're only concerned with protecting the rights of the legacy copyright industry and pharmaceutical industries, while paying little to no attention to the impact on public health, knowledge and innovation, would apparently put a damper on their future job prospects.

from the the-system-is-broken dept

If you follow the history of copyright law, it's truly about taking a ridiculous duct-tape approach to dealing with changes in technology. Basically, each time a new technology comes along that shows how the old laws are obsolete, lobbyists run to Congress and some sort of change is duct-taped on, often haphazardly, with little concern for either the unintended consequences or exploring how broken the system is in the first place. That actually makes things worse, because you have all these random "add-ons" that make copyright law make even less sense. When radio came along, we got some duct tape. When cable TV came along, we got some duct tape. When the internet came along, we got some duct tape. And not all of it made sense. There are still big fights going on today as everyone tries to sort out how the radio duct tape applies to the internet. And, of course, the Aereo fight was partly about whether or not the cable duct tape applies to the internet (leading to the Supreme Court turning duct tape into a duck).

We've discussed at length the ridiculous process by which cell phone unlocking was briefly declared legal under copyright law... and then magically became illegal due to a decision by the Librarian of Congress to rescind an exemption to the DMCA. After over 100,000 people signed a petition asking for it to be fixed, the White House told Congress to fix it -- but in true duct-tape fashion, decided that it should just add on some more duct tape by saying changes should be made to telecom regulations, rather than targeting the root of the problem: Section 1201 of the DMCA, better known as the anti-circumvention clause.

As we noted recently, after a year-and-a-half of a mix of fighting over this and a whole lot of nothing, the Senate came up with a compromise that isn't horrible, but doesn't do very much other than make it legal to unlock your phones again. The full Senate has now approved this. Of course, earlier this year, the House passed a dangerously bad bill to pretend that it was dealing with the problem as well, but it actually had some bad problems. The two houses will have to bring the bills into alignment now, and hopefully the Senate bill wins out.

However, as Tim Lee over at Vox points out, this is a huge missed opportunity because it's Congress taking that same duct tape approach yet again. Rather than actually fixing the underlying problem (a broken Section 1201), Congress has decided to pass a bill that duct tapes on "except for unlocking mobile phones... for now." This isn't surprising. Actually fixing Section 1201 would be a massive process that would lead to quite an insane fight from Hollywood (they love the anti-circumvention provision, because it allows them to DRM everything and create controls for themselves beyond what everything else in copyright law allows -- such as taking away fair use).

The other big stumbling block is that, thanks to bogus international trade agreements, doing something so simple as to actually fix this broken part of the DMCA that possibly made cell phone unlocking illegal... would likely violate more than half a dozen trade agreements. While Congress has the power to ignore those trade agreements if it wants, lobbyists love to go apeshit about anything that might "violate international agreements," as if suddenly Europe won't do business with us any more because we dare to let people unlock their mobile phones.

Either way, this one issue does a lot to show why copyright law continues to be such a mess. It's just a hack process, which new technology routes around... and Congress' response is just to duct tape on the next mess to "fix" the mistake, rather than look at the underlying reasons why the law is outdated and problematic. Hopefully you'll be able to unlock your mobile phones soon without worrying about breaking the law -- but that won't be true for other things, like modifying your video game console or other types of electronic devices. A sane world would get to the root of the problem and fix it, but this is Congress we're talking about, and no one thinks that's a sane world.

from the it's-your-rights dept

Update: This post was modified to better explain the role of the three-steps test in both Berne and the TPP.

Today is day five of Copyright Week, where the focus is on fair use. Earlier today we already had Michael Petricone's excellent post about the innovations and consumer benefits unleashed by the Betamax ruling, which hinged on the concept of fair use. Over at Wired, Automattic's (the makers of WordPress) general counsel, Paul Sieminski, also has a great post talking about how much innovation is enabled by fair use and why companies should be fighting more to support their users' fair use rights. Meanwhile, over at Public Knowledge, there's a good discussion of how the flexibility of fair use is important in enabling it to respond to new innovations. These are all great ways of looking at the issue.

I wanted to focus on a different aspect of fair use, however, and that's the unfortunate fact that it is often described (especially in official political discussions) as an "exception or limitation" to copyright. That implies, incorrectly, that copyright is "the normal state" and that fair use is something that can only be used in "exceptional" cases, where a political body has decided to carve out some small breathing space. But that's wrong. Fair use is about the rights of the public to speak, to make use of content, to comment, to criticize and to express themselves.

These are fundamental rights of the public -- not "exceptions or limitations."

It is, instead, copyright that has always been an "exception and limitation" on the rights to free expression. We can (and should) discuss and debate the proper levels of copyright and its limitations on expression. But to frame things as if fair use is a minor "exception" is a subtle but dangerous twist of language that copyright maximalists have been employing for far too long.

And it's a public right that is under threat. While negotiators were (after decades of negotiating) able to work out a WIPO Treaty for the Blind last year, copyright maximalists fought hard against it, because they were convinced that any attempt to expand what they called "limitations and exceptions" would set a dangerous precedent. And, if you look at things like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP agreement), the USTR tried to take credit for it being the first time that it was willing to include "limitations and exceptions" in a trade agreement. That, on its face, is true (and it's better than previous agreements, like ACTA, which ignored fair use and the public's rights entirely), but the wording does not in fact establish any limitations or exceptions: it sets out parameters that curb what limitations and exceptions countries are allowed to offer. The wording is based on a three-factor standard that is actually more restrictive than current fair use laws in the US. The standard is clearly modelled after the Berne convention, to which the US is already a signatory despite several differences, such as fair use, between US copyright law and that treaty's requirements. The TPP's "exceptions" would only serve to solidify these inflexible fair use requirements that the US currently, mercifully, defies.

Pay close attention to this issue as we go through the copyright reform process. Fair use isn't just some limitation or exception. It's not just -- as some have said -- a "valve" on copyright restricting speech. It is, instead, core to the very concept of free speech. It is the public's rights. Don't let the language twisters try to frame the debate as one about "limitations and exceptions" because if that's the debate, we've already lost. Fair use doesn't just enable all kinds of important innovations -- including much of the internet you use and love today. It represents a fundamental right of you to express yourself, and that right must not be taken away.